homosexuality

Friendly, spirited debates please people! Keep it clean.

Should gay marriage be legalized

yes
130
71%
no
53
29%
 
Total votes: 183

User avatar
Merv Simestra
Commander
Posts: 1269
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:11 pm
Real First Name: Meg
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Merv Simetra
Location: Kouka Kingdom
Gender: Female
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby Merv Simestra » Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:51 pm

Actually, a lot heterosexual love isn't real either. Any marriage born out of infatuation can never last is what I was trying to say. And I am implying that some gay love isn't real love, but only because that's my opinion.
I'm pretty certain that gay people know that marriage is a serious thing. Otherwise they wouldn't bother fighting so hard for it.
True, and some gay activists are fighting for it because it's the whole "freedom" thing (and I'd go as far to say freedom-from-religion thing). Gay people in general would rather be left alone than get involved in this kind of stuff really.
"On God rests my salvation and my glory; my mighty rock, my refuge is God."
"God is our refuge and strength, an ever present help in trouble."


Procrastinator and Obsessive are my middle names.
Spoiler:
Voted Eternity Awards 2013 winner of...
Favorite Moderator/Administrator
Best Journal Writer
The Sensible One
Most Likely to Run for President
Most Devoted to AFC
and Always in the Know.
Again with the president thing.
Shameless plug: visit my website!.

Pandora Hearts, the most epic manga to have existed. 2006--2015
Image

Yona of the Dawn, Most Epic Romantic Manga
Image

Shut up, I know I'm trash.

AthenaParadizo
Commander
Posts: 1106
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:13 am
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby AthenaParadizo » Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:26 pm

Freedom-from religion thing? Erhm... I, personally think that freedom from religion is a good thing. No compulsive religion, no idiots trying to convert others to their religion, and freedom to believe or disbelieve in whatever you want. (Like the book Life of Pi, by Yann Martel. The main character has 3 religions, and he's pressured to choose just one. He wants freedom from religion, not as in atheism [which is just fine too], but as in freedom to believe in whatever he wants.)
I, personally would like freedom from religion. My grandpa is an extremely narrow-minded, atheist-bashing ex-pastor, and I don't agree with most of what he says. I can't come out and say, "You're insulting me. I'm a skeptic, and you say skeptics are idiots," and I'd like to have the freedom to follow my religion (if I choose to do so, and I guess atheism is a religion too) without being pressured to convert others when they're perfectly happy with what they've got.

And back on topic - love is love. Simple.

User avatar
Merv Simestra
Commander
Posts: 1269
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:11 pm
Real First Name: Meg
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Merv Simetra
Location: Kouka Kingdom
Gender: Female
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby Merv Simestra » Sat Apr 28, 2012 10:38 pm

Freedom-from religion thing? Erhm... I, personally think that freedom from religion is a good thing. No compulsive religion, no idiots trying to convert others to their religion, and freedom to believe or disbelieve in whatever you want. (Like the book Life of Pi, by Yann Martel. The main character has 3 religions, and he's pressured to choose just one. He wants freedom from religion, not as in atheism [which is just fine too], but as in freedom to believe in whatever he wants.)
I, personally would like freedom from religion. My grandpa is an extremely narrow-minded, atheist-bashing ex-pastor, and I don't agree with most of what he says. I can't come out and say, "You're insulting me. I'm a skeptic, and you say skeptics are idiots," and I'd like to have the freedom to follow my religion (if I choose to do so, and I guess atheism is a religion too) without being pressured to convert others when they're perfectly happy with what they've got.
In the US, freedom from religion can mean no religion anywhere or keeping religion in the church, temple, synagogue, etc. At least those are the ones I hear about most. But I think some atheists are pushing for the former.
"On God rests my salvation and my glory; my mighty rock, my refuge is God."
"God is our refuge and strength, an ever present help in trouble."


Procrastinator and Obsessive are my middle names.
Spoiler:
Voted Eternity Awards 2013 winner of...
Favorite Moderator/Administrator
Best Journal Writer
The Sensible One
Most Likely to Run for President
Most Devoted to AFC
and Always in the Know.
Again with the president thing.
Shameless plug: visit my website!.

Pandora Hearts, the most epic manga to have existed. 2006--2015
Image

Yona of the Dawn, Most Epic Romantic Manga
Image

Shut up, I know I'm trash.

User avatar
Rocket Axxonu
Centaur
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:16 am
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Axxonu
Location: United States
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby Rocket Axxonu » Sun Apr 29, 2012 4:21 am

I'm just replying on the last paragraph of the last post.

First of all, homosexuality does not mean that you CAN'T have sex with a member of the opposite sex: it just means that you're not inclined to. Therefore, if we need more babies, I'm sure those who are homosexual will oblige and do their duty to the human race.
Now, where I'm going with this argument is that you can have sex with members of the same sex, and still have children via. someone of the opposite sex (which is how many gay couples have children, either that or adopt). So I don't see how they are therefore not fitting into a 'survival of the fittest' category. Their sexuality doesn't stop them surviving or competing for food, land, wealth etc etc., or from passing on their genes.
I don't know, but something in me totally rebels against this solution. It's like the story of Sarah and Abraham, who were married, but Sarah thought herself too old for having children, so she told Abraham to sleep with her handmaiden to produce an air. He did, and then Sarah found herself jealous of her servant and bullied her horribly as a result... That is, I believe sex is a very serious, sacred thing, and I know if I were a homosexual, I wouldn't want my partner having such intimacy with someone else, and I would feel horribly guilty if I was. Even if we both rationally told ourselves, 'it's okay because we only love each other, this is just a necessarily, logical step', if we were really attached to each other, our emotions would make us feel betrayed, or like the betrayer, even if we tried to rationalize it away. Animals may have multiple mates for the purpose of reproduction and furthering their genes, but humans have other considerations to attend to. Scientists have tried to apply animal models to human beings, saying things like it's man's natural instinct to be unfaithful even when he gets married, because he naturally wants to have sex with as many women as possible to further his genes (or some a little more extremist even blame rape on animal instincts man can't help), but what makes a happy, healthy relationship for a human being isn't the same as for an animal.

Interestingly, this is the contradiction we see in this argument. On the one hand, I hear people saying that homosexuality is a natural instinct people are born with, that they can't help it. But on the other, people say that humans being are more than animals meant to propagate a species, and they should do what makes them happy, which might be living as a homosexual. Personally, I'm inclined to believe that human beings are fundamentally different from animals in that they can make a conscious decision about how they want to live. (That is, men are not slaves to their genes, and I don't take that as a legitimate excuse for men who are unfaithful to their wives.)

Merv, I've heard the 'freedom-from-religion' thing too — In the US, there isn't actually anything in the original constitution that bans religion from schools or public places. Basically, it started as a letter from one of the founding fathers, who said he did not want the govt. to be controlled by the church, as the Catholic church controlled everything back east. He didn't meant for all religious content to be banned from everything, but that's what it's kind of turned into.

Athena — (sorry, I'm really pressed for time here, I might come back and edit this post to say more or say it better) religious people wanting to convert other people to their religion isn't necessarily about helping other people find the greatest happiness in this life. In Christianity, people believe that there will someday be a judgment on everyone for all the sins they have committed, and to escape going to Hell or being destroyed in the final judgment, you must acknowledge the sin in your life and acknowledge that God's Son, Jesus Christ, came to this world to take your place as far as judgment of that sin goes, and ask to receive that gift of grace. That is, we believe that everyone who misses this chance and doesn't accept the gift, they are lost. Therefore, trying to convert other people shouldn't be an attempt to impose personal views on someone else or show off how righteous you are, but out of a true desire to save them. (Unfortunately, in Christian history, people trying to convert others haven't always had motives so pure...) Does that make sense? The truth is the real ideal of conversion is not about taking something away from someone else or not being tolerant, or oppressing someone, but out of a real love wanting to help others.
“After all, absolutely no one can help but suspect a criminal, liar, and manipulator of committing crimes, lying, and manipulating. And of course, no one is more aware of that simple fact than Artemis Fowl.”

Opal sets into motion her most diabolical scheme yet, to frame Artemis and turn his closest friends against him. Only this time she has a new calculating partner who knows Artemis better than he knows himself. [An Artemis Fowl fanfiction, set after The Atlantic Complex.]

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8336552/1/Noble-Heart ...Shameless self-advertising, guys! C;

(And if you're really bored: http://axxonu.deviantart.com/gallery/28 ... temis-Fowl AF fanart. ;J)

nindra
Council Member
Posts: 2453
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:41 am
Location: North-Europe's part of Series of Tubes
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby nindra » Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:43 am

Actually, a lot heterosexual love isn't real either. Any marriage born out of infatuation can never last is what I was trying to say. And I am implying that some gay love isn't real love, but only because that's my opinion.
So. A lot of heterosexual love isn't real, but they're allowed to marry each other because high-ish divorcement rate doesn't ruin the sacredness of marriage despite all the broken promises that are made during the process. But the moment two homosexuals get married, marriage is ZOMGRUINED, no matter what "type" of love it is.
How does that make any sense and how is that fair?
æ

User avatar
opalkoboi
Heiki Koboi
Posts: 1037
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:46 pm
Real First Name: Phoebe
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Heiki Koboi
Location: Forming the Ranga Revolution....MUHAHAHAHA!!!
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby opalkoboi » Sun Apr 29, 2012 1:51 pm

Well, is it out of true love that gay people want to marry, or is it simply infatuation? If it is infatuation, then the marriage is bond to fail so why let it happen? If it is true love, then all right let them have one shot at it.


Please keep in mind that marriage is a very serious thing. Marriage is a lifelong commitment. That means that every couple who gets married has to take things seriously. (Do not use Hollywood's examples of marriage as true examples. They messed it up completely.) Imagine the reaction of the parents of the couple if they got a divorce over something stupid. That's a lot of money down the drain.
So? What does any of that have to do with gay marriage? You fall in love with a person, not a gender, people need to stop being so hung up on it :/ Love defines marriage, not gender.
Image
I see you too! XD

Image

User avatar
levina
Centaur
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:06 am
Location: somewhere in cyberspace
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby levina » Sun Apr 29, 2012 5:59 pm

Well, is it out of true love that gay people want to marry, or is it simply infatuation? If it is infatuation, then the marriage is bond to fail so why let it happen? If it is true love, then all right let them have one shot at it.
First of all: why do you have to know if it's real love or not before you allow someone to marry? How is that fair?

You're implying that we should pose restrictions on gay couples that would never be considered for heterosexual couples. Why? Simply because gay love is more likely to be infatuation than het love, and therefore it isn't as worthy for marriage as het love is, so gay couples should only be allowed to marry if it's real love?

Lots of het couples marry out of infatuation, too. Why do we let that happen?

And second of all: who are you to judge whether it's real or not?

I'm sorry to gang up on you, Merv, but you really have to better explain your arguments. There's a million holes in those few statements right there.

User avatar
opalkoboi
Heiki Koboi
Posts: 1037
Joined: Mon Dec 07, 2009 7:46 pm
Real First Name: Phoebe
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Heiki Koboi
Location: Forming the Ranga Revolution....MUHAHAHAHA!!!
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby opalkoboi » Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:38 pm

Why? Simply because gay love is more likely to be infatuation than het love, and therefore it isn't as worthy for marriage as het love is, so gay couples should only be allowed to marry if it's real love?
Wait, I get that you're being supportive here...but why is gay love more likely to be infatuation? To what do you base this incorrect statement on?
Image
I see you too! XD

Image

User avatar
Merv Simestra
Commander
Posts: 1269
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:11 pm
Real First Name: Meg
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Merv Simetra
Location: Kouka Kingdom
Gender: Female
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby Merv Simestra » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:01 pm

I'm sorry to gang up on you, Merv, but you really have to better explain your arguments. There's a million holes in those few statements right there.
You know, I completely agree with you there. I gotta think through my answers better. *smacks self in the head repeatedly*

Athena, I just realized that what you described as freedom-from-religion is actually freedom-of-religion which I'm perfectly fine with.
Actually, a lot heterosexual love isn't real either. Any marriage born out of infatuation can never last is what I was trying to say. And I am implying that some gay love isn't real love, but only because that's my opinion.
So. A lot of heterosexual love isn't real, but they're allowed to marry each other because high-ish divorcement rate doesn't ruin the sacredness of marriage despite all the broken promises that are made during the process. But the moment two homosexuals get married, marriage is ZOMGRUINED, no matter what "type" of love it is.
How does that make any sense and how is that fair?
I wasn't implying that, and I'm sorry if it sounded like I was. I think that the high-divorce rate is awful, destroys a lot of families, and ruins the sacredness of marriage. I do get your point about homosexuals marrying.

I'd like to point out something my mom told me this morning: Homosexuality has been around for centuries, but even the cultures that openly practiced it never thought about homosexuals marriage because it was against nature. So if homosexuals would like to legalize gay marriage, they would have to invent it first. Just thought I'd point that out.
Well, is it out of true love that gay people want to marry, or is it simply infatuation? If it is infatuation, then the marriage is bond to fail so why let it happen? If it is true love, then all right let them have one shot at it.
First of all: why do you have to know if it's real love or not before you allow someone to marry? How is that fair?
I'm not saying that the only way to get married is if it's out of real love and not infatuation. I'd just like it if people thought about it more before they get married. Or if they wouldn't rush into marriage blindly.
Lots of het couples marry out of infatuation, too. Why do we let that happen?
Because we're too blinded to stop it. Or we don't care about it so we don't do anything about it.
And second of all: who are you to judge whether it's real or not?

I am sorry if my response came out seeming like that. I didn't mean to sound all preachy and righteous.

Rocket, just curious but are you a Christian? Because you nailed that part of Christianity.

Again, I'm sorry if some of things I've said didn't come out right, or if you have misunderstood me. This is the first time I've actually been in a real debate so I'm not always sure how to answer your questions.
"On God rests my salvation and my glory; my mighty rock, my refuge is God."
"God is our refuge and strength, an ever present help in trouble."


Procrastinator and Obsessive are my middle names.
Spoiler:
Voted Eternity Awards 2013 winner of...
Favorite Moderator/Administrator
Best Journal Writer
The Sensible One
Most Likely to Run for President
Most Devoted to AFC
and Always in the Know.
Again with the president thing.
Shameless plug: visit my website!.

Pandora Hearts, the most epic manga to have existed. 2006--2015
Image

Yona of the Dawn, Most Epic Romantic Manga
Image

Shut up, I know I'm trash.

nindra
Council Member
Posts: 2453
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:41 am
Location: North-Europe's part of Series of Tubes
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby nindra » Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:45 pm

I'd like to point out something my mom told me this morning: Homosexuality has been around for centuries, but even the cultures that openly practiced it never thought about homosexuals marriage because it was against nature. So if homosexuals would like to legalize gay marriage, they would have to invent it first. Just thought I'd point that out.
Please define "against nature", especially when animals are doing it, too. And I think homosexuality has been around as long as humans (or sex, for that matter). It's nothing new, really.

And when it comes to cultures that "openly practice homosexuality" "thinking about gay marriage", Finland legalized civil union between gays few years ago (I think some states of USA has this too). Sweden has had "proper" gay marriage since 2007 and Denmark is currently working on it. And at least Denmark will allow the priest to refuse marrying the couple if they think it's against their faith, in which case the couple will find another priest.
æ

User avatar
levina
Centaur
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:06 am
Location: somewhere in cyberspace
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby levina » Sun Apr 29, 2012 11:38 pm

Why? Simply because gay love is more likely to be infatuation than het love, and therefore it isn't as worthy for marriage as het love is, so gay couples should only be allowed to marry if it's real love?
Wait, I get that you're being supportive here...but why is gay love more likely to be infatuation? To what do you base this incorrect statement on?
Er, Heiki... that's not what I was saying. I was asking Merv why she was implying that. It's just that my way of debating usually consists of me asking a lot of questions. :')
Well, is it out of true love that gay people want to marry, or is it simply infatuation? If it is infatuation, then the marriage is bond to fail so why let it happen? If it is true love, then all right let them have one shot at it.
First of all: why do you have to know if it's real love or not before you allow someone to marry? How is that fair?
I'm not saying that the only way to get married is if it's out of real love and not infatuation. I'd just like it if people thought about it more before they get married. Or if they wouldn't rush into marriage blindly.
Okay, but since that applies to both het and gay couples, it's kind of irrelevant here.
Lots of het couples marry out of infatuation, too. Why do we let that happen?
Because we're too blinded to stop it. Or we don't care about it so we don't do anything about it.
No, we don't do anything about it because we don't have the right to, and because their love lives are none of our business.
Homosexuality has been around for centuries, but even the cultures that openly practiced it never thought about homosexuals marriage because it was against nature.
Of course marriage between gays isn't a "natural" thing; no kind of marriage is "natural." Marriage is a legal contract between two adults. How can any kind of marriage be "against nature?" Marriage can only be against the law or against the "rules" of society, because it's from governments and societies (i.e. religious societies) that marriage is created.

AthenaParadizo
Commander
Posts: 1106
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:13 am
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby AthenaParadizo » Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:50 am

Off-topic warning....
I was a Christian, Rocket. I guess I sort of am, to a point.
I understand the conversion bit, but that's actually one of my main reasons for being a skeptic. If God really does love us, every one of us, why would we go to hell just because we don't believe in him? That's sort of harsh.
(I've been thinking about religion and questioning it in my spare time for the past week, and I still can't put my views in words? *rolls eyes at self*)

User avatar
Merv Simestra
Commander
Posts: 1269
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:11 pm
Real First Name: Meg
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Merv Simetra
Location: Kouka Kingdom
Gender: Female
Contact:
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby Merv Simestra » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:36 pm

I'd like to point out something my mom told me this morning: Homosexuality has been around for centuries, but even the cultures that openly practiced it never thought about homosexuals marriage because it was against nature. So if homosexuals would like to legalize gay marriage, they would have to invent it first. Just thought I'd point that out.
Please define "against nature", especially when animals are doing it, too. And I think homosexuality has been around as long as humans (or sex, for that matter). It's nothing new, really.

And when it comes to cultures that "openly practice homosexuality" "thinking about gay marriage", Finland legalized civil union between gays few years ago (I think some states of USA has this too). Sweden has had "proper" gay marriage since 2007 and Denmark is currently working on it. And at least Denmark will allow the priest to refuse marrying the couple if they think it's against their faith, in which case the couple will find another priest.
For your first point, animals rarely display homosexual behavior, and that doesn't always mean the animals themselves are homosexual. I do agree that homosexuality has been around for a long time in humans, but that doesn't make it right or natural. (Sorry if that was a little blunt, but I'm not sure how else to put it.)

For your second point, I was talking more about ancient cultures. The Greeks, for example, practiced homosexuality openly but never had gay marriage. That's why I said that homosexual marriage would have to be invented before it became legalized.
Homosexuality has been around for centuries, but even the cultures that openly practiced it never thought about homosexuals marriage because it was against nature.
Of course marriage between gays isn't a "natural" thing; no kind of marriage is "natural." Marriage is a legal contract between two adults. How can any kind of marriage be "against nature?" Marriage can only be against the law or against the "rules" of society, because it's from governments and societies (i.e. religious societies) that marriage is created.
But then how come some animals mate for life and don't choose multiple mates?
"On God rests my salvation and my glory; my mighty rock, my refuge is God."
"God is our refuge and strength, an ever present help in trouble."


Procrastinator and Obsessive are my middle names.
Spoiler:
Voted Eternity Awards 2013 winner of...
Favorite Moderator/Administrator
Best Journal Writer
The Sensible One
Most Likely to Run for President
Most Devoted to AFC
and Always in the Know.
Again with the president thing.
Shameless plug: visit my website!.

Pandora Hearts, the most epic manga to have existed. 2006--2015
Image

Yona of the Dawn, Most Epic Romantic Manga
Image

Shut up, I know I'm trash.

User avatar
levina
Centaur
Posts: 946
Joined: Sat Oct 29, 2011 6:06 am
Location: somewhere in cyberspace
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby levina » Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:38 pm

It all depends on the species and the enviroment they have to breed in. It's not exactly easy to find a mate sometimes, but I'm sure if it were more animals would be polygamous.
Or maybe not. I'm not a biologist, but I know that whatever the reasons are that animals are programmed this way, animals are instinctive, not sentient, so all mating is natural.

Anyway, we're veering off topic. Back to gay marriage, everyone.

User avatar
Rocket Axxonu
Centaur
Posts: 811
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 8:16 am
AFC Fan Fiction Name: Axxonu
Location: United States
Gender: Female
Status: Offline

Re: homosexuality

Postby Rocket Axxonu » Tue May 01, 2012 7:56 am

Dangit, sorry this is so long. Feel free just to read the sections that pertain to you who I replied to... but I had a lot to say that I thought was important. :<
Well, is it out of true love that gay people want to marry, or is it simply infatuation? If it is infatuation, then the marriage is bond to fail so why let it happen? If it is true love, then all right let them have one shot at it.
First of all: why do you have to know if it's real love or not before you allow someone to marry? How is that fair?

You're implying that we should pose restrictions on gay couples that would never be considered for heterosexual couples. Why? Simply because gay love is more likely to be infatuation than het love, and therefore it isn't as worthy for marriage as het love is, so gay couples should only be allowed to marry if it's real love?

Lots of het couples marry out of infatuation, too. Why do we let that happen?

And second of all: who are you to judge whether it's real or not?

I'm sorry to gang up on you, Merv, but you really have to better explain your arguments. There's a million holes in those few statements right there.
(This is kind of a reply to what you guys are saying, sort of not, I'm just following my own train of thought) But yeah, on this topic I always feel the need to tread carefully... Because it's very sensitive and personal for a lot of people. I'm not intending to make much in the way of definite assertions here, but instead just put forward some ideas to think about.

First of all, I don't really believe that homosexual love is necessarily more often going to be just infatuation as opposed to true love. If non-infatuated driven relationships are rare, then it is because it's rare in very many romantic relationships. As a fine arts major, I know several homosexuals in my class. There's one guy in particular whose been with his partner for several years if I'm remembering right (can't remember how many exactly, but it seems like a lot to me, and indicative of a steady relationship). Two men/two women *can* be very close, I don't doubt it at all. So my question is – why does it have to be a sexual relationship? Two women can be partners in the world, same with men, every bit as close as a relationship between a man and a woman, without being lovers. I consider my sister my best friend in the world, and I would tell her things I wouldn't tell anyone else, and I feel much more comfortable going to strange places and meeting strange people if I have her with me. But I don't feel like we're any less close because of a lack of romantic/physical relationship going on in addition to what we already have.

The physical part of a relationship is, I believe, a superficial part of the relationship. Even between a man and a woman who are married, and truly love each other – that is, if they truly loved each other, and something happened and they couldn't have sex anymore for some reason, that shouldn't change their love for each other in the slightest. They can still be emotionally close without being sexual. Sex is a fulfillment of a natural instinct and a source of pleasure, and that's not a bad thing in and of itself, but the sexual part of a relationship isn't the most important thing. The difference between two sisters or two brothers who really care about each other, and a homosexual relationship where the two legitimately care about each other and it's not just the lust that often appears in romantic relationships, is that the homosexual relationship is physical.

The question then is, is the physical aspect of the relationship necessary to have complete fulfillment in the relationship? We know that a relationship based entirely on superficial infatuation is not all that solid of a base – infatuation does not value the other person for themselves, so much as for their looks, their body. It's based on a physical desire that will only last for that one particular person for so long. Therefore, though the relationship between two homosexuals may not be superficial, the physical desire part *is* a superficial part of the relationship to some extent.

Of course, I'm definitely not saying that's a reason to ban homosexual relationships, because then we'd have to ban all sexual relationships period, lol. (And our species would die off...) So I'm not arguing for or against allowing homosexuals to marry here... Just asking a simple question: why does the love between two people of the same gender have to be physical? Or, maybe I should phrase it from the opposite point of view too – Why shouldn't it be physical, if heterosexual love can be physical?
It all depends on the species and the enviroment they have to breed in. It's not exactly easy to find a mate sometimes, but I'm sure if it were more animals would be polygamous.
Or maybe not. I'm not a biologist, but I know that whatever the reasons are that animals are programmed this way, animals are instinctive, not sentient, so all mating is natural.
Surprisingly, despite the reigning view that homosexuality is unnatural, I'm inclined to believe the opposite. I think it is, in fact, a natural inclination. I mean, it's kind of what like you were saying in your journal... (but I won't talk about that here, I can actually use myself as an example instead) So... when I was in grade school, I was really a tomboy, to the point where I actually wanted to be a boy. This was before I even knew what homosexuality was, or that there was even a word for such a thing, and I have a couple of distinct memories of saying I 'liked' a particular girl or other.

As I've gotten older, as an artist I like drawing both male and females and like the forms of both kinds of bodies (though not from a pornographic standpoint, please don't get that impression of me X3). I won't get into any more detail than that... but suffice it to say, I've always had a very strong impression that, if I allowed myself to go in that direction, I could quite easily become bisexual or homosexual. (I say 'become,' because I don't believe that differing sexualities are something innate that we are both with, rather it is an inclination that can be acted upon or not.)

So, what I'm going to say now is... Just because something is a natural inclination, does not necessarily mean it is something that should be acted upon and make a person happy. There are many, many examples of things that animals do that we as humans with the power of choice obviously shouldn't. A good example is violence – when two animals disagree, they may very well fight, while in our society, we expect that humans ought to have the self-control not to brain each other every time two guys are after the same girl or one steps on the other's ego or something. Another is looks – it's our natural inclination to judge other people by the way they look, to want to pursue people who look attractive and avoid people who aren't. As a first impression, judging on looks is unavoidable, but we know it's wrong to shun someone based entirely on how they look – yet that is often the first impulse. A man's natural inclination may be to sleep around with young beautiful women when he's away from his wife, despite the fact that he took a vow to only be hers, which hurts her tremendously, or even just to spend time looking at pornography on the internet. Our natures and natural inclinations can be very superficial, and not things we should necessarily act upon, even if they are there.

That's why I consider it worthwhile to take the effort to choose not to go down that road, I guess. I know it's good for people to learn to be themselves and follow their interests, but... I don't believe that giving in would really make me a happier person. I feel like I have the power to choose what I want to be, because I'm a human being.

So... just to be clear, I wouldn't consider these arguments against the practice of homosexuality itself. I guess I'm just intending to point out the flaws in the assumptions that some of the pro-homosexuality arguments have – 1. That the sexual aspect of a homosexual love-relationship is a given and 2. That because something is natural, it should be acted upon.
Rocket, just curious but are you a Christian? Because you nailed that part of Christianity.
Thanks! (: Yes, I am, sorry if I seemed ambiguous about it. But yeah... I don't always come out and say so (or put it in my bios and such), because I admit I have something of an inferiority complex about it. It doesn't even have anything to do with being ashamed of it, or being laughed at, or not considered intellectual because of it, it's just that the name of 'Christian' just has such a heavy weight of responsibility in my mind. (Some people who claim the name of Christianity and then blatantly don't follow the teachings, the type of people who make hateful remarks and whatnot or don't set a good example in other ways, really hurt the cause of what Christianity is supposed to be about. And I'm so afraid of being one of those people, so it makes me far more timid than I should be. ): )
Off-topic warning....
I was a Christian, Rocket. I guess I sort of am, to a point.
I understand the conversion bit, but that's actually one of my main reasons for being a skeptic. If God really does love us, every one of us, why would we go to hell just because we don't believe in him? That's sort of harsh.
(I've been thinking about religion and questioning it in my spare time for the past week, and I still can't put my views in words? *rolls eyes at self*)
(Sorry, I'm continuing on with the off-topicness, because it's just so interesting, and faith is a big part of the whole issue of homosexuality and what people believe)

Yeah, I've struggled with this for a long time myself. Especially when I was in high school, and going through my sort of 'altruistic phase' (really struggled with what I thought on homosexuality too, since I hate to impose on other people, and really just want everyone to be allowed to pursue their own happiness), and just wanted everyone to get along and be treated/treat others well. In fact, one part of me has always wanted everyone to just be saved at the end and go to heaven, for everyone to just automatically be shown mercy.

I mean, I can't give you a definite answer, because like I said, I'm still grappling with these ideas. But for the most part, I've come to a new understanding on the topic:

One thing I've noticed in today's society – people want to be merciful. They want to give criminals a second chance – except that that changes when the criminal did something to wrong them. If some guy tortured, raped, and murdered someone's college-aged daughter, it's easy for some judge to say, 'I want to show mercy and not give him the death penalty' or only give him thirty years or whatever, or post bail to allow him to go home and possibly make a run for it before the trial, but in most cases the parents aren't going to want mercy. Even if they aren't going for the death penalty, they are going to want some justice of some kind, and it's their right. People in general think things measures seem harsh against criminals when it has been someone else who has been wronged, but when it's their fence that's been graffitied or their hard-earned money that's been stolen, they want strict punishment for the perpetrator, they want justice. (This isn't always true of course, just a general natural inclination of most)

Everyone in the world is a sinner, with evil – even though that's a strong term that we don't like to apply to ourselves – in their hearts, and has wronged someone else, caused someone else pain, and most of all wronged God. God cares about every person in the world, which is why He can't just let everyone do whatever they want and get off free at the end. Because of His character, He is not responsible only for being merciful, but for showing justice as well. Let's put it this way: let's say a king of a country was called to judge a certain situation in which a man had stolen from an innocent person, or murdered them, or some other crime where someone was wronged. Would the act of a righteous ruler who loved his people be to essentially punish the innocent person by letting the criminal go free, without any consequence? This, of course, is where the well-known story of Jesus Christ comes in – Jesus came to this world to act as the ultimate sacrifice, to bear the punishment of all the sin that, because of God's sense of righteous justice, had to be paid for by someone. However, we are still given a choice of whether to accept that gift of mercy or reject it.

These ideas of justice and mercy aren't easy things to accept, I know. And I've been thinking about these things for years and still don't know quite how to express them, so don't worry, you're not alone, lol. (Spirituality is a very complicated thing...) But I know there have been many things I would prefer not to believe that I know to be the truth; the truth isn't always an easy thing.

--

Btw, this is a bit random, but right here at the end there's just one thing I want to mention about the concept of 'Hell' that I've been talking about with my dad off and on for a while now – We all have the image of the eternal flame pit, I know, where everyone who doesn't accept Jesus Christ's mercy goes when they die... I'm not a preacher, so definitely don't take my word for this, but my dad was talking about some interesting aspects of this. In the Bible, if I understood right, nowhere is it actually said that when unsaved sinners dies, they go to a fire pit to be tormented for eternity. There is only a line (or a few lines) about how the devil and his angels are cast into the lake of fire, where they will be tortured forever and ever, while in reference to humans, it only says they will suffer 'eternal punishment,' and if you think about it, those aren't the same thing. Death, or the end of everything could be considered 'eternal punishment.' So it could be that unsaved souls will be destroyed, rather than thrown into a permanent Hell as such.

I would prefer to think that actually, but of course I guess no one will know until they die. (I guess ultimately it would better not to take chances either way) But anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there. There are actually a lot of traditions about things in Christianity that are unfounded and probably misconceptions. (Such as, I think, the belief that Jesus was crucified on Friday... It never says He was crucified on Friday, but nowadays it's always assumed. But that's another topic unto itself, lol.)

*hey levina, looks like I'm really earning that 'long-winded' title of yours. ;P
“After all, absolutely no one can help but suspect a criminal, liar, and manipulator of committing crimes, lying, and manipulating. And of course, no one is more aware of that simple fact than Artemis Fowl.”

Opal sets into motion her most diabolical scheme yet, to frame Artemis and turn his closest friends against him. Only this time she has a new calculating partner who knows Artemis better than he knows himself. [An Artemis Fowl fanfiction, set after The Atlantic Complex.]

https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8336552/1/Noble-Heart ...Shameless self-advertising, guys! C;

(And if you're really bored: http://axxonu.deviantart.com/gallery/28 ... temis-Fowl AF fanart. ;J)


Return to “The Debate Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Artemis Fowl Confidential Fan Forum : Disclaimer
cron

Login  •  Register